Inland Valley cities anticipate exten...

Inland Valley cities anticipate extension of Gold Line light ra...

There are 12 comments on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story from Sep 3, 2009, titled Inland Valley cities anticipate extension of Gold Line light ra.... In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

Area cities have jumped on the Gold Line bandwagon, but the light-rail train is not likely to pull into Inland Valley stations any time soon - 2017, at best.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

1580KDAY Pomona

Lytle Creek, CA

#1 Sep 4, 2009
To Habib Balian:

Answering your comment about being patient; I say to you in all sincerity stuff it. We in the East San Gabriel Valley have more than paid our share in taxes and in some cases maybe even more than other parts of the county. The time is now for the Goldline to extend to Claremont for phase one. It is absolutely not exceptable for the Greedy One Gloria Molina to get a Six Mile train set to East Los costing a total of $899 Million dollars. Our project is more ready to go and it is not as expensive and we cover more miles and will serve more people than The Molina East Los Express. Everyone who reads this post should realize that you pay high property tax and those taxes are going to rize, and we really have nothing to show for our toil. Get involved and demand that your taxes are better represented by having the GoldLine Extension completed to Claremont by 2013 Not Azusa but Claremont.... Remenber this your hard worked for taxes. Make these reps accountable with our Hard Earned Money....

Los Angeles, CA

#2 Sep 4, 2009
San Gabriel Valley - 1 Metrolink line
City of Los Angeles (downtown LA and points west)- 0 Metrolink lines.

Don't say LA has received "more than it's fair share" of transit benefits.

Walnut, CA

#3 Sep 4, 2009
Where did you read that a train to Asuza will have higher ridership than the one to extremely dense east LA? You chose to live in suburban sprawl - why should we spend money on your unsustainable lifestyle? Finally, because you voted against Measure R I frankly don't think you deserve any money from it.

Los Angeles, CA

#4 Sep 4, 2009

And the SGV has not just a Metrolink line, but the BEST Metrolink line!

Alhambra, CA

#5 Sep 4, 2009
The Gold Line is a mistake... it is slow and has too many station stops. Too bad they can't tear out those wires and put real trains, like Metrolink, than can go faster than 55 mph.

The drivers stuck in traffic on the 210 East in Pasadena would be more "impressed" by an 80 mph Metrolink passing them, than the slow 55 mph Gold Line trolley.

A slow, frequently-stopping Gold Line from Claremont to Pasadena is not competitive with the 210.

Columbia, SC

#6 Sep 4, 2009
"A low frequently-stopping Gold Line from Claremont to Pasadena is not competive with the 210".

Because Metro rail should be in dense, urban areas and Metrolink for the suburban cities. Going to Azusa makes sense for the Gold Line, but nowhere further.

Whittier, CA

#7 Sep 4, 2009
The East Side line will have much higher ridership than the Foothill line. If not for politics no transit planner would even consider the Foothill Extension because it will traverse through low-density, auto-dependent neighborhoods and will take an hour just to get to Union Station. You can argue about tax equity all you want, but that doesn't justify building an expensive, low-ridership line over project with much more merit. Instead, funding in that region should be used to enhance Metrolink, and expand 2010 carpool lanes into HOT lanes with extensive commuter bus service.

Whittier, CA

#8 Sep 4, 2009
That's funny that this article mentions politics as the reason this line has had trouble gaining traction at Metro. What's ironic is that its only because of politics that this line is even being considered. The Westside is getting a lot of the funding because they have the density to support the projects. Lets do a comparison: Expo Phase II: over 70,000 projected riders for 1.1 billion. Foothill: 15,000 riders for 1.5 billion. Even the subway extension, which is very expensive, will add over 85,000 riders and be more cost effective than Foothill.

Long Beach, CA

#9 Sep 4, 2009
This is way too expensive. No way should the line go further than Claremont. There alreay is a Metrolink stop right next door to the airport. Why waste taxpayers money on two stops.
1580KDAY Pomona

Pomona, CA

#10 Sep 4, 2009

I do not know where in the hell do you get your figures, making it appear that all of the cities east of Pasadena are low density. By the volume of the traffic on the Foothill Freeway should tell you otherwise. We need the Goldline because of its frequency; running every twenty to thirty minutes to LA is perfect the train is way more dependable than the bus. Also one thing that you have overlooked is when gas goes back up to Four or even five dollars a gallon, ridership will increase to at least four fold. If you critisize the East SGV on what we need and don't need, get the facts corect Chythead.

Hacienda Heights, CA

#11 Sep 5, 2009
Let get this line moving sooner not later as now proposed. It can be built much faster and much less expensive then now proposed. Let’s use the San Diego example by taking the current BNSF track which is close to the needed condition for a new LRT line. By electrifying the current BNSF track, building stations with a “gauntlet” track or stations with movable ramps as used on the new Oceanside Escondido Sprinter service so that the fright trains can safely pass the stations. There are currently enough cars now being delivered to provide service as the segments of the line opens eastwardly. Caltrans agreed when they removed the ATSF bridge over the East lanes of the 210 Freeway that they would rebuild it when transit use needed the bridge.

The line can later be double tracked when it proves itself and the additional service is required.

So the cost would be the cost of electrifying the current track, building stations and parking which the city’s along the way could help with, upgrading the tracks where needed, add passing tracks where needed and adding new signaling.

If Caltrans gets started on the 210 Freeway bridge the line could be in operation to Glendora within 2 years at the most. 15 to 20 minuet service could be operated on single track and the cars could be stored at the outer end of the line.

The details are not all that complicated and when the MTA and politician say it can not be done just have them look look to the successes of the original San Diego Trolley to the Border at San Yesidro.
Joshua Reyes

Baldwin Park, CA

#12 Sep 25, 2009
Please...JUST BUILD IT!!!!! I didn't pay an extra half-cent tax in LA County just to see something it was going to pay for not get built.

Truly, what waste...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Westwood Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News British YouTube star Calum McSwiggan who 'faked... Jul '16 Curtis 1
News Restaurant review: Potholder Caf stands out in ... Jul '16 Ronald 1
News YouTube star Calum McSwiggan charged over West ... Jun '16 Wilbur 2
Bishop Charles Edward will be exposed in 2012/s... (Feb '12) Jun '16 john lee 12
News Attempted Arson Suspected at Kardashian-Owned S... Jun '16 Ay- que tontos 2
News Sports Arena closing after hosting huge 20th ce... May '16 UFOs are real 1
News 10 Best Pizza Restaurants in Los Angeles (Feb '15) Feb '15 William Walker 1

Westwood Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Westwood Mortgages